memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Daystrom Institute
The Doctor's emitter At the end of , when the doctor is decompiling and is having his "deathbed confessions", he asks Janeway to donate his mobile emitter to the institute. Should this be included in the article? Resonancewave 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) :The reason it's not part of the article is because there's a dispute over what he said. Some of us believe he didn't say Daystrom Institute, he said "Daystrom is cute!!! ^_^" as noted on the page for Daystrom himself. The discussion and consensus can be found here. 19:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks much! An enlightening discussion, to be sure. :) I'm not hearing the "^_^", though; does he squeeze it in just before he starts the next lines? Resonancewave 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) :You have to play it backwards. We're still arguing about whether that's canon or not. 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) ::Resonancewave, it might be best not to listen to what that anon is saying. ;) --From Andoria with Love 23:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Jack Pack was here? Should the mention of the Jack Pack as having been institutionalized at Daystrom be removed from this article? I thought we had generally agreed that they were at an unnamed "Institute".--31dot 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Removed the passage: The Institute is also home to a long-term medical facility. Among the patients were genetically enhanced individuals who could not be introduced into the Federation population. ( )--31dot 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) From Talk:Daystrom Institute of Technology Merge suggestion Can we maybe just use common sense and assume that this is just the full name for the Daystrom Institute which was also introduced in the episode? It seems very unlikely that tptb intended to introduce two separate but confusingly similar sounding institutes in the same episode. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:10, July 28, 2014 (UTC) :From the script, Graduate of the Daystrom Institute. The biographical data file states that she wrote a doctoral thesis for and earned a Doctor of Theoretical Physics from this school. Then, we learned that she is a professor at this school. After she had graduated from the college, she became a research assistant at the Daystrom Institute. Daystrom Institute is the research and development establishment, as well as a department within Starfleet, while the Daystrom Institute of Technology is a college, which prepares students for a career in the Daystrom Institute. Throwback (talk) 17:32, July 28, 2014 (UTC) ::Where do you get the "prepares students for a career" bit? -- sulfur (talk) 18:00, July 28, 2014 (UTC) :I am still working on this page. If that line is problematic, I will drop it. No problem. Throwback (talk) 18:07, July 28, 2014 (UTC) ::No speculation. Simply state the facts. Speculation clouds the issue immensely. -- sulfur (talk) 18:10, July 28, 2014 (UTC) Its not exactly unheard of for an institute to both teach people, and perform research. In fact that's how pretty much any university taking itself seriously works. Maybe it would be useful if we could know exactly what was said in this okudagram. If there is any argument at all for the two to be seperate, it would be in the wording of that. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:19, July 28, 2014 (UTC) :Okay. :* Current Position: Professor of Theoretical Physics - Feynman Chair (Honorary) - Daystrom Institute of Technology :* Educational Background: Doctor of Theoretical Physics - Daystrom Institute of Technology - Thesis - Higher Order Warp Field Propulsion Applicatons :* Career Summary: Research Assistant - Daystrom Institute - Developed protocols for measuring higher order subspace field distortions. Published articles in ''Scientific Tasmanian. :Lastly, the Daystrom Institute is not an university. It's a department within Starfleet, with civilian "contractors". Throwback (talk) 18:45, July 28, 2014 (UTC) ::Counter to that, RMC here in Canada is part of the "military complex" with a bunch of civilian contractors. Yet... it's also a university. I don't see why the two Daystrom Institutes cannot be referring to the same thing. -- sulfur (talk) 19:27, July 28, 2014 (UTC) :If I assume or interpret anything, I am personally attacked by Pseudohuman and, now, Capricorn.. If I work within canonical facts, I am attacked for staying in the canon. I can't win either way. F--k this. Do whaever you want with this page and keep me out of it. Throwback (talk) 19:55, July 28, 2014 (UTC) :I have removed the text to Daystrom Institute. Are we happy now? Good. Throwback (talk) 20:26, July 28, 2014 (UTC) :I am angry at many things. I am angry at people who can't be bothered to do their own research. I am angry at people who think they have some clairvoyant insight into the writer of those okudagrams. I am angry at people who use the words "we" and "our". Where do you get the idea that this site belongs to you, exclusively? I am not in your group "we". I am a contributor. I don't own this site nor do I clam to. I am angry that people doubt what I say. I am angry about this speculation law - for that is what it is, a law. I keep looking for a definition on this wiki and I can't find one. Why isn't there one? And, finally, I am angry that there is a thought in someone's head that I am somehow deficient, that I am somehow less than human, because I dared to think there was a difference between the two. Throwback (talk) 02:57, July 29, 2014 (UTC) Oh my. Even skipping the extended grievance to stubbornly stay on topic, I'm a bit stumped. It is very weird that in a single three paragraph text, the institute would be refered to with one name twice, and another name once more. Honestly, to merge or not, I'm just not sure anymore after trying to interpret that bit of text. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:02, July 29, 2014 (UTC) :''Original research. Subjective essays which analyze or draw conclusions about Star Trek are not encyclopedic. Conclusions, synthesis, analysis or associations which have been mentioned in canon or sourced from a credible real-world authority are acceptable Background content, with citations.'' :Analysis is defined as, detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation. So, the exercise that was being attempted on this talk page would not be allowed under this rule. There can be no room for interpretation on data, as I am not permitted to do an analysis on the data. I have to accept it as it is. The Daystrom Institute of Technology is regarded as a separate entity from the Daystrom Institute, by the writer of that okudagram. This is a contradiction between the dialog and the okudagram. So, what do I do? Well, according to the guidelines, :The preferred approach to dealing with conflicts is that to the greatest extent possible in-universe information should be construed so as not to be in conflict, as the presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances. :In the event that two in-universe resources directly conflict with each other, either can be referenced as a valid resource, provided the other is also included in some manner in the article and the conflict noted. Explanations of the conflict and the reason for the selection of one resource over another should appear in a manner that is set off from the main text of the article, like in a background note. :I had to dig deep into the guidelines to find that. The search engine has a built-in preference - it will take me directly to one of the encyclopedic entries. :I included in the body of the text that the Daystrom Institute of Technology was affiliated with the Daystrom Institute. I believed that this would solve the above problem. I was wrong apparently. Should I have included it in a background note? I don't know. Throwback (talk) 15:59, July 29, 2014 (UTC) :Well, it does become more complicated. In , Bruce Maddox holds an Associate Chair of Robotics at the Daystrom Technological Institute. Is this the same as the Daystrom Technological Institute? In the script, it is called the Federation Institute of Technology. ---- Merge. Keep redirect. - 00:44, March 12, 2015 (UTC) * Merge the Daystrom Institute of Technology and the Daystrom Technological Institute with Daystrom Institute. Tom (talk) 19:20, June 9, 2015 (UTC) :::Merged and kept as a redirect. Tom (talk) 09:25, October 15, 2015 (UTC) Removed I removed the portion about this institute "likely" being founded by Daystrom. No likelys unless someone says that. But since the founder would be a matter of historical record in-universe, why would someone speculate. --LauraCC (talk) 17:38, March 9, 2018 (UTC) Journals are the same The Journal of Daystrom Institute and the Daystrom Institute Journal are certainly the same. Such equivalent titles appear frequently and would never be intentionally introduced as separate publications. I say this as a pre-automation library worker who had to code such ambiguous titles across superficial issue title changes which would waver back and forth at the whims of their design staff through the decades. In cases of confusion we would shelve under the title which did not begin with "Journal" because so many others did. 22:02, January 24, 2020 (UTC) :Maybe it officially changed name at some point. But more to the point, when we don't know how two terms relate exactly, we tend to not make assumptions but just document and leave conclusions to the reader. You had a lot more evidence to go on that those differently named issues were of the same magazine that we have, we have just names and nothing to put them in context. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:50, January 26, 2020 (UTC) Daystrom institue of Advanced Robotics So, has anyone noticed that per the logo graphic in the hall, the Okinawa facility is named not the "Daystrom Institute of Technology" or any variant thereoff, but the "Daystrom institue of Advanced Robotics"? I've cut out the long rant before posting, but any ideas on the best way to deal with this? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:42, January 26, 2020 (UTC)